In Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette, 2025 ONSC 6273, a 3 judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court comprised of Justices Backhouse, Lococo and Shore considered an appeal by a mother granting the father equal parenting time with their 15-month-old child on a week-about basis.
The parties were in a relationship for 2 years and separated before the child was born. The mother had a daughter from a previous relationship and the father had 3 children from a previous relationship, who reside with him on a week about basis.
The mother had primary care of the baby since birth. The father’s parenting time was initially exercised in the mother’s home, in the presence of the mother, gradually increased to public spaces in the presence of the mother, and finally unsupervised in the father’s home. The father’s parenting time thereafter remained on alternate weekends for 4 hours on each Saturday and Sunday.
The father served an Application and brought a motion for the immediate implementation of an equal parenting schedule on a week-about schedule. The mother opposed the motion because of the child’s young age and the fact that he was still breast-feeding at night. She was prepared to increase the father’s time in increments, leading to an equal time-sharing arrangement by the time the child started kindergarten. The mother submitted that the child was too young to spend extended time away from their primary caregiver.
The motion was heard on April 8, 2025, with oral reasons being provided the same day. The decision provided for an equal time-sharing arrangement on a week-about basis, with a mid-week overnight visit with the non-residential parent, to be implemented within a six-week period. This decision was appealed by the mother. She needed (and was granted) leave to appeal and a stay pending the appeal.
The Divisional Court panel considered the motion judge’s departure from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts of Ontario’s (AFCC-O) Parenting Guidelines which were informed by the applicable social science. The motion judge provided no reasons as to why this parenting schedule was in the best interests of the child. The motion judge did not address why a departure from recommended age-appropriate parenting schedules in the AFCC-O Parenting Guidelines met the best interests of this child.
The Divisional Court granted the mother’s appeal and set aside the equal time-sharing parenting schedule. The court stated:
[39] The motion judge made a finding that the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC-O”) Guidelines are not law, and less applicable in this case.
[40] While the AFCC-O Guidelines are not binding law, Ontario courts have accepted the social science behind the Guidelines when making parenting orders in the best interests of young children: Hatab, at para. 61. If a judge departs from the established and widely accepted social science research, reasons are needed to depart from same. None were given in this case.
[41] The AFCC-O Guidelines summarize basic social science knowledge about the effects of parental separation on children, provide suggestions and guidance to help improve communication and cooperation between separated parents, and offer guidance about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children. The Court’s approach to the AFCC-O Guidelines was summarized by McGee J. in Melbourne v. Melbourne, 2022 ONSC 2299, 72 R.F.L. (8th) 84, starting at para. 19:
[19] The AFCC Parenting Guidelines were prepared by the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-Ontario) to assist parents and their professional advisors in specifically developing the best, child-focused, and realistic parenting plans. As set out in its preamble,
This Guide combines knowledge gained from developmental research on the impact of parental separation and divorce on children, with practical insights about the needs of children with parents living apart. This Guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Template, which offers suggestions for specific clauses that can be used or adapted for a parenting plan.
[20] I agree with Justice Chappel in McBennett v. Davis, 2021 ONSC 3610, when she states in paragraph [92]:
The AFCCO-O Guide summarizes basic social science knowledge about the effects of parental separation on children, provides suggestions and guidance to help improve communications and cooperation between separated parents and offers valuable guidance about formulating parenting arrangements that meet the needs of children.
[21] And as further stated by Justice Kraft in H. v. A., 2022 ONSC 1560 at para. 61:
The parenting plan guide produced by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – Ontario (“AFCC-O”) has been found by many courts to be of great assistance in determining parenting schedules that are in a child’s best interests, depending on the age of the child and his/her developmental stage. While not binding on the courts, the Guide provides a great deal of helpful information and reflects a professional consensus in Ontario about the significant (sic) of current child development research for post-separation.
[42] The motion judge ordered a 15-month-old child to spend equal time with both parents, a departure from what is recommended by the AFCC-O Guidelines and social science, with no reasons offered as to why this was in the best interests of the child. The judge emphasized the father’s work schedule but did not address why a departure from recommended age-appropriate parenting schedules met the best interests of this child.
This case is a very useful cautionary decision for counsel on parenting motions, especially when the child is an infant or toddler and one party is seeking a rapid move to equal time. The practical lessons for lawyers are:
- Don’t argue “equal time” as a principle and rather stick to the best interests of the child as the legal test
- Treat the AFCC-O Parenting Plan Guide as persuasive social-science scaffolding to build your case
- If you seek a departure from the AFCC-O Parenting Plan Guide, give the judge the road map for reasons
- In infant/toddler cases, phased parenting schedules often prevail because they are child-centred
- The strongest submissions are practical and child-focused, not ideological
- Motions are dangerous places to seek “final-like” parenting restructures on thin records
- Preserve appeal issues at the motion stage
CASE LINK: https://canlii.ca/t/kggnl
If you are interested, Professors Rachel Birnbaum and Nicholas Bala have developed a survey focused for improving the AFCC-O Parenting Plan Guide at https://uwo.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6sXaxzn8HO9LYVM
This article was recently published in LEXISNEXIS Law360 at: https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2447019/are-the-afcc-parenting-guidelines-now-law-in-ontario-
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, Acc.D.C., is a full-time Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: